|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Science? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1452709174 Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 01/13/16 at 10:19:34 |
|
Title: Science? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/13/16 at 10:19:34 http://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/climate-models-climate-reality-closer-look-lukewarming-world Is CATO good enough? When will the lack of realizations of the hysterical warnings of dire consequences reach the minds of those alarmists? |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by Serowbot on 01/13/16 at 10:34:54 2C3335322F2819291921333F74460 wrote:
No... |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/13/16 at 11:18:46 Why not.? |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by Serowbot on 01/13/16 at 12:11:59 You expect good science from a Right Wing think tank?... :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by pg on 01/13/16 at 15:52:20 2731263B23363B20540 wrote:
What do you feel would be acceptable middle ground so to speak? Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by Serowbot on 01/13/16 at 16:15:39 That's the problem... Real science is perceived as Left, because the Left bases it's assumptions on the scientific consensus... 97%... I suppose a middle ground would have to give equal weight to the remaining 3%... 97% = 3%... This is an absurd middle ground... ::) A "middle" ground would be half science, half horseshit... ;D |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by oldNslow on 01/13/16 at 16:38:59 Quote:
If science had anything to do with "consensus" the earth would still be flat. |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by Serowbot on 01/13/16 at 17:03:31 Yeah, right... ::) |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/13/16 at 19:08:18 aving observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century. http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/father-of-global-warming-changes-his-mind-says-doomsday-scenario-not-likely Just as some dismiss sources because they don't trust their motives, believing that they are entrenched in the greedy, right wing criminal element so clearly running things, I don't trust this bunch of scientists who have signed onto the idea that the human race is responsible for a Significant Amount of the change. Really? What percentage IS a Significant Amount? Why have the computer models so utterly failed? Just exactly HOW does one take the temperature on a rooftop and then Adjust it to compensate for the location? Why stop using weather stations in remote locations? Why place them where they can't possibly report useful data? Unless you Want to see increase. We were told that hurricanes would increase in number and severity. Not only did that Not Happen, they decreased. Ice would be gone from the Arctic by 2012. And yet, I am aware of two rescue missions sent to save researchers trapped by ice. Is there change? Yep, and we are responsible for some of it. But, if CO2 is the bad guy, then we need to plug volcanoes. CO2 is pumped into hothouses because if they don't, the plants can't thrive. NAFTA and all the other deals that shipped jobs away? They got shipped to places where regulations that force manufacturers to clean up the discharges don't exist, so, we crapped on America And the world, all in one swell foop. This issue is just being used as a political football. Al Gore got his movie banned in some places, because the claims are so clearly bogus. If they honestly want to be taken seriously they need to gather Honest Data, and this time, don't destroy the raw data used to create the basis for a conclusion. While I can See data collection from locations that are nonsensical, I can not be convinced that WE are such a threat. This truly is a Global Issue, or it is Not. If it is true, then Americans paying a Carbon Tax will not make a dent in it. Yet, that is all I really see the politicians wanting. Why am I not hearing Fat Al praising the science of Rossi and the hope for the world that That technology is? Blood and Gore, check it out. A scheme to buy and sell Carbon Offset privileges. Imagine buying a license to throw out the trash on the side of the road. When I start seeing money making schemes tied to legislation I become skeptical. Couple that with the lack of warnings about how many bad things would come coming true? Pardon my skepticism. The notion that the right wing is somehow more greedy and willing to engage in corruption to get ahead is ridiculous. |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by WebsterMark on 01/13/16 at 19:14:11 That's the problem... Real science is perceived as Left, because the Left bases it's assumptions on the scientific consensus... 97%... I suppose a middle ground would have to give equal weight to the remaining 3%... 97% = 3%... This is an absurd middle ground... ::) A "middle" ground would be half science, half horseshit... ;D Here's one of the chief problems: there has never been a 97% consensus. That's like saying 10% of the population is gay. Not true, never was, but most think it's is. The left lies about science far more than the right. |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by raydawg on 01/13/16 at 19:25:39 I feel..... Therefor..... I am. Right. Heard a good one the other day, s'pose to be an oldie, but I never heard it. It goes, you can't win an argument with an idiot, they have way more experience ;D |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/13/16 at 21:37:33 I don't see anyone who is pretending that they are right without believing that they have evidence to support their position. I'm just trying to get people to look at the predictions made years ago and looking at the observed reality. The PDF that loads is just about eleven pages, plenty of information. Read it, look at the charts, think. The climate has Not done what they warned us about. Why not.? Why continue to embrace what has been demonstrably incorrect? |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by Serowbot on 01/13/16 at 21:59:51 "If you don't like the weather in New England now, just wait a few minutes." - Twain If you live on a coast,... consider a move... :-? |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/13/16 at 22:09:36 e climate has Not done what they warned us about. Why not.? Why continue to embrace what has been demonstrably incorrect? Has anyone SEEN the increased number of hurricanes? |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by WebsterMark on 01/14/16 at 06:42:15 4B545255484F7E4E7E46545813210 wrote:
Exactly correct Jog. Nothing predicted, absolutely nothing, has come to pass. So you have to ask, how is it that our friend Sew here as well as others, continue to dump sand on their heads? Sorry Jog but here's where we split: it's not a conspiracy in the sense you think of conspiracy. It's a conspiracy of group-think that pays societal and financial benefits. The idea the opposition to global warming is funded by 'big oil' is laughable. Global warming is a ticket to tenure, grants, funding, and just as important, membership in the 'club'. Find out what happens to the thousands of scientist (yes, thousands) who dare speak even a word of opposition. The global warming community of scientist is self perpetuating. If everyone actually re-evaluated their positions based on actual data, they'd come back with the conclusion that global warming, while it exist, is tiny for the most part, insignificant. If that happened, billions of dollars and the camaraderie all these scientist live with would disappear. The last conference in Paris brought 40,000 together. 40,000! And that's just the official scientist. That doesn't include all the side show business's that survive on the continued existence of global warming. Sew and company don't want to stand out by looking like the odd ball so they go along with the group. They think "If Matt Lauer and Savannah Guthrie say its so, who am I to dispute that?..." The world might be gone in 100 years of something, but it won't be because of sea level's rising the thickness of a dime or the average temp climbing a fraction of a degree. |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by Ed L. on 01/14/16 at 07:01:07 Here's another take on it. Science supports evolution which is contary to just about all religious teachings. By discrediting any form of science the reglious nuts support thier flat earth, master creator BS insanity. JMHO It's become a knee jerk reaction on this board. :( |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by Serowbot on 01/14/16 at 08:20:17 I can't believe I didn't say that... ;D |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by raydawg on 01/14/16 at 09:01:43 16370C1F7D530 wrote:
Yes, and that is why we have a separation clause, but GW is forced upon all, or else, as fact :o |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by verslagen1 on 01/14/16 at 09:18:03 360403121504132C00130A610 wrote:
Left Logic: It has already been proven that 97% of climate scientists have written a paper on climate change. And since they've written a paper on climate change, they must have the opinion that it's a man-made change. If you pay the left enough, they'll have any opinion you want. |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by WebsterMark on 01/14/16 at 10:33:29 7352697A18360 wrote:
and you make exactly my point: because of your anti-religious bigotry, you put anyone who might question certain science theory into the box labeled nut job. there are thousands of scientist who would say science does not completely support evolutionary theory. in fact intelligent design is gaining ground as a theory that answers some questions current evolutionary theory does not. by simply suggesting that intelligent design is a theory that should be looked at more closely, you will put me into your nut job box. By suggesting global warming theory has not proceeded in the manner suggested 20 to 25 years ago, I am also in the nut job box. that is science by consensus. And in our world today, that is science by politically correct consensus. just try being in a position of power or authority and proposing the idea that there's a difference between male and females or there's a difference between the races. See how quickly your balls get hacked off. presumably, you would have fed Galileo his poison because he went against the accepted position at the time so was labeled a nut job. Congratulations! |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by Ed L. on 01/14/16 at 11:23:44 Ah another knee jerk response putting me in the anti-religious bigot slot instead of admitting that religion although a wonderful force for good has also been one of the bags of cement that has dragged science and human advancement down over the centuries. Maybe I'm a bigot but it's only due to my own experences with religion. I watched my older brother die from cancer during which the church he was a member of would send members in not only to pray for him but also have him give that church thousands of dollars to be saved. They were milking my brother for every cent they could while he was on his death bead with brain cancer. As he died a member of that church had the balls to tell me that my brother wasn't pious enough and didn't believe enough which is why he died. I've posted this before and have had other dealings with religious groups that make me wonder WTF. If that is what religion is all about then count me out, I'll enjoy the wonders of nature and science. The entire intelligent design arguement is just a smoke screen to cast doubt on the science of evolution. The PC crowd won't allow the term "Evolution" to be used in most schools. That same tatic has been done by big busness with tobacco causing cancer, high frutose corn syrup being bad for you, fracking doesn't harm the enviroment, the list is endless. If you don't believe that this tatic is common in everything that is fed us today I wont be able to convince you otherwise. |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by Serowbot on 01/14/16 at 11:29:51 4D7F78696E7F68577B68711A0 wrote:
The consensus of the time, was religious dogma... Do you see the irony?... :-? |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by oldNslow on 01/14/16 at 11:52:07 697F68756D78756E1A0 wrote:
The consensus of the time, was religious dogma... Do you see the irony?... :-?[/quote] Kinda like the consensus about Anthropogenic Global Warming is today's liberal religious dogma. |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by raydawg on 01/14/16 at 12:13:24 4B6A5142200E0 wrote:
Did you just miss, or ignore, my reference to separation? |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by WebsterMark on 01/14/16 at 13:11:11 If that is what religion is all about then count me out, I'll enjoy the wonders of nature and science. No, it’s not what it’s all about. I’m sorry about your experience, but if you’re judging all religion on a bunch of a$$holes and the way they treated your brother, you’re being foolish. By that logic, the guy who turns racist because of his experience with one black man must be your soulmate or something….. The flip side of your experience is I’ve seen religious people make enormous personal sacrifices that go mostly unheralded. Even still, I don’t assume everyone who claims they are religious to be honest and you shouldn’t assume everyone in organized religion is a thief, selfish or whatever. The entire intelligent design arguement is just a smoke screen to cast doubt on the science of evolution. You are simply wrong. Again, your anti religion bias is narrowing your field of vision. Honestly, what the hell do you know about intelligent design? Without looking it up, what is the science behind intelligent design? The PC crowd won't allow the term "Evolution" to be used in most schools. Oh, that is just 100% BS! Big time BS flag there! You’ve got to be living on another planet or something… |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by Serowbot on 01/14/16 at 16:51:09 17292824362A2B450 wrote:
By "liberal religious dogma", I assume you mean accepted science?... Cristian America thinking is running behind the Vatican. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by pg on 01/14/16 at 17:17:35 3422352830252833470 wrote:
I am not a devout religious person; however, I see an inconsistency in your logic. For an atheist or perhaps agnostic, why do you only criticize Christians? Perhaps you have just disdain for Christians as oppose to religion.... Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by oldNslow on 01/14/16 at 17:43:04 Quote:
I mean the bogus "science" that liberals accept as gospel. AGW. Quote:
The Vatican - or at least the Pope, wholeheartedly believes that AGW is real. What exactly is "Christian America Thinking" and what does it have to do with the evidence or lack of evidence regarding AGW.? |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by Serowbot on 01/14/16 at 21:38:12 5D4A4C404F5F2D0 wrote:
If I were in Iran, or China, it might be different... ... being in the USofA, the influence of the ridiculous is Christian... BTW... God is regional... what you believe, is 99% location, location, location... The cure is education.... God is nothing more than a political manipulation of myths... All gods are nothing but a manipulation of myths... You really shouldn't ask me these things... If I don't answer, I'm accused of weakness... if I answer, I can only hurt your fragile reality... Why do these questions trigger so much animosity?... I know why... I know,.. that deep down, we all know that what we fear is real. A minority of us face this square in the face... the rest are clinging to a fairy tale. If you can hold on to that,.. then do so... ..but don't challenge me... it cannot help your quest. |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by raydawg on 01/14/16 at 22:03:39 Yeah...... Don't extend to yourself, what bot extends to himself ::) Animosity, that is ripe. |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by pg on 01/15/16 at 05:05:02 3127302D35202D36420 wrote:
I have not openly discussed my religious views. What quest do you feel I am on? Frankly speaking, I see headlines of atrocities committed nearly on a daily basis in the name of religion. Yet no mention of those from the left, the only group they routinely attack are the Christians........ Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by Serowbot on 01/15/16 at 07:37:52 Sorry pg,... not directed at you personally. just came out in response to your question. Religious teachings can be used for good or evil... I generally see more outward judgement than inward enlightenment. The thing is,.. you can do this without fairy tale... it's just minus the promise of death without dying... Maybe the donkey would go to town without being lead by a carrot?... |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/15/16 at 08:40:12 Rowboat said I generally see more outward judgement than inward enlightenment. Amen. Helps keep me outta the churches. The whole I'm okay, you're not attitude makes me sick. I'll believe someone is Truly Okay when they can violate Newtonian physics at will. And Nothing makes me run away faster than someone telling me that I can trust them because they are a Christian. I don't remember being shafted any worse than by self proclaimed Christians. |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by pg on 01/15/16 at 16:08:56 27383E3924231222122A38347F4D0 wrote:
Nearly all the preachers I know are not "men of the clothe" so to speak. For every genuinely good one, I would say I know 4 that are swindlers, cheats, adulterers. so on. Unfortunately, that keeps men out of the church as well and the word sacrilegious come to mind. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by pg on 01/15/16 at 16:09:51 5F495E435B4E43582C0 wrote:
[smiley=thumbup.gif] Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by WebsterMark on 01/15/16 at 20:02:24 3720262A2535470 wrote:
Nearly all the preachers I know are not "men of the clothe" so to speak. For every genuinely good one, I would say I know 4 that are swindlers, cheats, adulterers. so on. Unfortunately, that keeps men out of the church as well and the word sacrilegious come to mind. Best regards,[/quote] what the hell?!...... where do you guys hang out? |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by raydawg on 01/16/16 at 11:59:26 774542535445526D41524B200 wrote:
Nearly all the preachers I know are not "men of the clothe" so to speak. For every genuinely good one, I would say I know 4 that are swindlers, cheats, adulterers. so on. Unfortunately, that keeps men out of the church as well and the word sacrilegious come to mind. Best regards,[/quote] what the hell?!...... where do you guys hang out? [/quote] Web.... I recall going to a Pastor's convention with my Pastor. One of the people to speak was a man named Gayle Erwin, a guy who he knew I really respected. Anyway, I got to tag with some pretty big names. I was privy to their "small talk" and I came away with a much more mature attitude. We can blame them, if we want to. It would be like blaming Al Gore and other rich global warming "preachers" that their actions don't mimic their claims, that jet fuel is a big contributor to the environment problems, yet, they fly some of the biggest private polluters, live in homes with giant footprints, etc.... Or, We acknowledge that pastors are just as big of sinners as we are. The divorce rate in just as high in the church, as it is out. That very fact has all sorts of roots one might apply as well. As A believer I believe according to my relationship, no one else's , as I will be judge accordingly..... If I want to find a fault, to believe or not, I can always find something blame. To blame a race based, on an experience I had with a member of that race, would show a flaw in my character, and no one else's, not to mention just a really pizz poor way to navigate through life.... Even Obama is human, we can disagree with him, but to hate him ( and I believe some do ) serves neither, it's the perfect testament to drinking the poison and wanting the other person to die.... PS: The Lord has a special treat for those Sadducee and Pharisees types, ya know Web ;) EDIT: I left out one important point my pastor friend shared with me on our trip back ( in was a three day convention ). I asked him, why do people become pastors? He replied, money. I thought he was jerking my leg. It was NOT even on my radar screen, even tho we hear about the Bakers, Swaggert's, etc, i just filed that under, it's to be expected, just on volume, sorta thing. But when my fishing buddy told me this straight up, I knew I had been assuming something that was in fact, not true. In no way does this minimize the message, or is a slam on pastors, etc, BUT, it is a fact that we need to admit. |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/16/16 at 12:57:54 It's not that I hate. I just choose to not congregate. I have friends. We talk. Wherever two or more are gathered,,,, I don't have to hate or have an unforgiving heart to choose to not associate. |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by raydawg on 01/16/16 at 13:34:49 4E5157504D4A7B4B7B43515D16240 wrote:
JOG, when I brought hate into my post, it was directed at the political climate, I know people who hate Obama, and I know libs that hate anything with a R after their name..... I will never tell someone my "belief" and its expression is the only way. I will however try to explain my beliefs, and expression thereof, and that is where others might "hear what they want to hear" and assign it something so they can affirm themselves ;D |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/16/16 at 13:36:53 Gotcha. |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by raydawg on 01/16/16 at 14:36:17 687771766B6C5D6D5D65777B30020 wrote:
Can't help but think this what your backho said after it greeted you ;) |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by Serowbot on 01/16/16 at 15:10:34 7B68706D687E6E090 wrote:
Can't help but think this what your backho said after it greeted you ;)[/quote] It said,.. "Ouch!"... ;D |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/16/16 at 18:34:57 I couldn't hear what it said. The crunching and the falling and then the thrashing around groaning kinda had my attention. When I said Gotcha, I meant I understand. Left the Y out. |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by raydawg on 01/16/16 at 18:42:08 6B747275686F5E6E5E66747833010 wrote:
I know, I was just being flippant :D |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/17/16 at 00:40:11 Id be Flippant right back, but im missing that finger. And it just never has felt right left handed. |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by raydawg on 01/17/16 at 07:25:57 3A252324393E0F3F0F37252962500 wrote:
Well I a sure there is more to it, that keeps you from becoming a liberal, than just being uncomfortable with their SOP retort, to any person that might challenge their speak ;D |
|
Title: Re: Science? Post by WebsterMark on 01/17/16 at 11:02:08 5C4345425F5869596951434F04360 wrote:
How do you drive without the most important finger needed to communicate with other drivers?..... |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |